Despite many media reports that Minnesota has forced online education platform Coursera to forbid Minnesotans from taking classes online, the state official in charge of this policy says it has done no such thing.

It is true that Coursera has changed its terms of service to include a cautionary note advising universities offering courses via the California startup that they could not do so in Minnesota without authorization from state regulators.

"If you are a resident of Minnesota, you agree that either (1) you will not take courses on Coursera, or (2) for each class that you take, the majority of work you do for the class will be done from outside the State of Minnesota," the terms, which were changed in August 2012, now read.

However, the state official in charge of enforcing this policy told Ars that his office does not have the power to regulate Coursera, as the company doesn’t offer courses directly. Rather, Coursera acts as a middleman for universities (including UC Irvine, Stanford, and many others) that want to offer free courses online.

"I don’t care what they do; we don’t regulate them," George Roedler, the manager of institutional registration and licensing at the Minnesota Office of Higher Education, told Ars on Thursday.

"I specifically said that [Coursera] didn’t have to put anything on their website. They could do what they wanted. They could ignore it. They chose this route and the reason I believe they did it was to try to protect the schools in their wake. So be it. That’s what they did."

Indeed, the change of the terms of service appears to be a precautionary measure to skirt potential violations of Minnesota law.

Law designed to protect students

Roedler explained that Minnesota's state law requires that educational institutions serving Minnesotans must be registered with the state—and pay a fee that can go as high as $12,000—as a means for the state to keep an eye on what's going on. He added that the law had been around for decades, and that many other states have similar laws on their books.

"It’s a consumer protection law," Roedler added. "We have had situations where in the past this law was enforced through student complaints. If we register the school, we have some control over the school. We have some standing over them. [We can say]: ‘You’ve mistreated this student—come into compliance.’"

A co-founder of Coursera told Ars that the company was informed of Minnesota’s law in July 2012 and changed its terms of service the following month. In addition, the company does not even know how many Minnesotan students it has.

"While is it up to individual institutions to choose whether to apply for permission, the Terms of Service amendment is intended to protect all of Coursera's partner universities with respect to Minnesota's laws," Andrew Ng told Ars in an e-mailed statement.

UPDATE (Saturday): Some astute commenters have noticed that Slate is now reporting that Minnesota is clarifying its position and doesn't want to discourage Minnesotans from using Coursera.

Larry Pogemiller, director of the Minnesota Office of Higher Education, sent Slate this statement:

"Obviously, our office encourages lifelong learning and wants Minnesotans to take advantage of educational materials available on the Internet, particularly if they’re free. No Minnesotan should hesitate to take advantage of free, online offerings from Coursera."

"When the legislature convenes in January, my intent is to work with the Governor and Legislature to appropriately update the statute to meet modern-day circumstances. Until that time, I see no reason for our office to require registration of free, not-for-credit offerings."

Promoted Comments

This news has already attracted posts on other forums about excessive regulations and stuff like that. But I actually support Minnesota here. Coursera is backed up by such high profile institutions that this news seem so important, but just online education is also a very comfortable ruse for fly-by-night operators like Tr-Valley University which the feds closed down last year. As the article rightly states this is:

There's an update that needs to be addressed here. The regulator has stated they will not crack down on online teaching sites that are free, until told otherwise. In addition they will push for better regulation to match what is happening right now.

Isn't Minnesota's response to this somewhat disingenuous? "No, we're not trying to ban Coursera, that would be ridiculous. Rather, we want to prevent the universities affiliated with Coursera from providing their courses through that site, unless they pay us a registration fee. Totally different." Seriously, if Stanford et al. can't offer their courses through Coursera, what exactly is left of the site?

Except that isn't what Minnesota is saying. If you read the statute in question, it specifically states that the statute only applies to academic institutes offering (and I quote) "courses and programs leading to academic degree". None of the Coursera courses lead to a degree, from my understanding, so the statute simply does not apply, any more than it would apply to someone in an IRC channel leading a math study course.

Now, if one of them offered a bachelor's, then they'd have to go through the process. Since they don't, registration isn't required.

Coursera is just covering their rears.

8 posts | registered May 23, 2009

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is due out in May 2018 from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

55 Reader Comments

This news has already attracted posts on other forums about excessive regulations and stuff like that. But I actually support Minnesota here. Coursera is backed up by such high profile institutions that this news seem so important, but just online education is also a very comfortable ruse for fly-by-night operators like Tr-Valley University which the feds closed down last year. As the article rightly states this is:

Isn't Minnesota's response to this somewhat disingenuous? "No, we're not trying to ban Coursera, that would be ridiculous. Rather, we want to prevent the universities affiliated with Coursera from providing their courses through that site, unless they pay us a registration fee. Totally different." Seriously, if Stanford et al. can't offer their courses through Coursera, what exactly is left of the site?

The regulators are back-peddling big-time, and this story appears to be falling for it. Why did the state ever contact Coursera if it wasn't trying to regulate it? And since the providers that Coursera uses ARE covered by the idiotic law, it's dishonest for the state to now claim that it doesn't care what Coursera does — because entities that the state claims the right to regulate are central to what Coursera does.

Isn't Minnesota's response to this somewhat disingenuous? "No, we're not trying to ban Coursera, that would be ridiculous. Rather, we want to prevent the universities affiliated with Coursera from providing their courses through that site, unless they pay us a registration fee. Totally different." Seriously, if Stanford et al. can't offer their courses through Coursera, what exactly is left of the site?

Except that isn't what Minnesota is saying. If you read the statute in question, it specifically states that the statute only applies to academic institutes offering (and I quote) "courses and programs leading to academic degree". None of the Coursera courses lead to a degree, from my understanding, so the statute simply does not apply, any more than it would apply to someone in an IRC channel leading a math study course.

Now, if one of them offered a bachelor's, then they'd have to go through the process. Since they don't, registration isn't required.

There's an update that needs to be addressed here. The regulator has stated they will not crack down on online teaching sites that are free, until told otherwise. In addition they will push for better regulation to match what is happening right now.

Kind of like the music industry I guess. We found a better model Training on Demand, that is in many ways superior to the traditional classroom setting as well as the textbook.

Where is there any evidence what so ever that training on demand is a better method then traditional instruction?

There seems to be this obsession with tech in teaching but were are the studies that show they help let alone the cost benefit? I enjoy these classes but they don't touch being in a real classroom where you can ask questions and you have less distractions.

Isn't Minnesota's response to this somewhat disingenuous? "No, we're not trying to ban Coursera, that would be ridiculous. Rather, we want to prevent the universities affiliated with Coursera from providing their courses through that site, unless they pay us a registration fee. Totally different." Seriously, if Stanford et al. can't offer their courses through Coursera, what exactly is left of the site?

Except that isn't what Minnesota is saying. If you read the statute in question, it specifically states that the statute only applies to academic institutes offering (and I quote) "courses and programs leading to academic degree". None of the Coursera courses lead to a degree, from my understanding, so the statute simply does not apply, any more than it would apply to someone in an IRC channel leading a math study course.

Now, if one of them offered a bachelor's, then they'd have to go through the process. Since they don't, registration isn't required.

Coursera is just covering their rears.

So why did the state of Minnesota contact Coursera in the first place? Those defending the state seem to be forgetting that little detail.

Couple of points. Some students receive credits from universities for successfully completing these online courses. So that puts the site right in the corss hairs of the law.

I don't quite understand how the state can claim consumer protection against something that is free.

As for educational science, there are a number of attributes that these courses and stuff at Khan's Academy offer that are very forward thinking compared to most schools.

1. Material can be digested at the student's pace instead of the teacher's pace.

2. Wide ranging statistics are being kept on performance to help develop the course. This is usually lacking in most classes.

3. Educational progress can be encouraged and tailored to an individual level. Not everyone learns at the same pace or in the same way. The materials are often in multiple formats. They could also be made available in multiple languages. Imagine a diverse group of students each getting the same lesson in their native tongue. A single teacher would probably be unable to do that.

Kind of like the music industry I guess. We found a better model Training on Demand, that is in many ways superior to the traditional classroom setting as well as the textbook.

Where is there any evidence what so ever that training on demand is a better method then traditional instruction?

There seems to be this obsession with tech in teaching but were are the studies that show they help let alone the cost benefit? I enjoy these classes but they don't touch being in a real classroom where you can ask questions and you have less distractions.

Speaking as a current college student who has experience with online education and classroom based, I'd say that some people just aren't smart enough, tech savvy enough, or lack the common sense to learn from an internet-based course. I go to school alongside a bunch of people who are forced to use technology they are unfamiliar with, and with little guidance on what to do when things go wrong.

For example, I am taking a course on statistics, where we go to class for lectures and tests, but do all of our homework through a Mathlab website, and there is almost no tutorial, advice, or framework for when things aren't working properly.

Another example, is that our campus uses E-college as a front-end for teachers to work with students electronically, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It is supposed to integrate with the campus e-mail, but it's very spotty, and is often down, or silently fails when I try to send a message to my teacher. There's no confirmation of e-mail sent, e-mail received, and trying to use it while not on-campus is essentially an effort in futility.

Final example: A lot of the people who are forced into online learning don't have the technical prowess or computer savvy to really function well in an online learning environment. A lot of the people I took hybrids with failed or did very poorly in the classes not because they weren't capable students, but because they didn't know the subtleties of the system. Those same people who did poorly in hybrids did very well in regular classes, because the environment was not outside their technological comfort zone.

For the record, Pearson has criminally terrible online learning supplements, and e-College systems can suck a fat one, they are absolutely awful at providing a usable service.

Why do we need permission from another human being to persue our lives?Or the "sanction" of the state?

Because the common pleb is not smart enough to make good decisions on their own, so it's up to the state to make sure we don't make improper decisions. It's a good thing we have these benevolent good Samaritans to help us out, otherwise we could be learning from any number of unauthorized sources.

What the article doesn't say, though, is the letter to Coursera was apparently sent to all postsecondary schools offering courses in the state. Coursera wasn't singled out specifically. Sounds like the state sent out a mass mailing as a reminder and Coursera happened to be on the list.

Why do we need permission from another human being to persue our lives?Or the "sanction" of the state?

Because the common pleb is not smart enough to make good decisions on their own, so it's up to the state to make sure we don't make improper decisions. It's a good thing we have these benevolent good Samaritans to help us out, otherwise we could be learning from any number of unauthorized sources.

May I ask who wrote that caption? There are plenty of people on the streets of Minneapolis or St. Paul at night. That photo is of a pedestrian bridge outside of downtown Minneapolis, and according to the description on Flickr it had been raining all day. That would be a miserable location when it's raining. Of course there's no one there.

May I ask who wrote that caption? There are plenty of people on the streets of Minneapolis or St. Paul at night. That photo is of a pedestrian bridge outside of downtown Minneapolis, and according to the description on Flickr it had been raining all day. That would be a miserable location when it's raining. Of course there's no one there.

Minneapolis, sure, St Paul not so much. Quote from a friend from Boston about post 5pm Friday in St Paul where I live: You could record a zombie movie here.

I live off 7st e by 3 bars, outside of the pedal pub and maybe Mears park when they have music its like the Walking Dead here.

I would support Minnesota if it was an actual institution, instead of a web portal.

As it is, really, it doesn't seem like a big deal. Basically just a "Hey guys, make sure you don't run afoul of Minnesota laws, and we're not responsible if you do".

Sure it is. This is the equivalent of "hey, that's a nice website you have there. It would be a shame if anything happened to it. Pay the registration fee and it won't.

This is classic rent-seeking behavior. It's somewhat justifiable in the case of brick and mortar universities. If you come into MN, you register and pay the fee. If you're outside of MN, then it's caveat emptor for MN residents who cross the border to attend your institution.

Now, of course, you don't have to cross the border, and instead of deciding that applying regulation intended for physical universities doesn't make sense on the web, they've decided to say something vague. Coursera had only three avenues: register and pay the fee, ignore it, or pass the buck. Registering incurs the fee cost. Ignoring it opens them to liability. Passing the buck is the cheapest way out, and apparently they feel will shield them from legal problems in the future, either from the state or from customers who run into problems with using the service within the state.

Who informed them(Coursera) of the law? It's not obvious that the state authority contacted them(Coursera), especially considering their statement. Language in the middle of the article could stand a bit of tightening up.

Except that isn't what Minnesota is saying. If you read the statute in question, it specifically states that the statute only applies to academic institutes offering (and I quote) "courses and programs leading to academic degree". None of the Coursera courses lead to a degree...

Some of the courses do lead to an academic degree, but only for those participants who are enrolled at the respective university. AFAIK the courses are then combined with lectures that require physical presence.

I would support Minnesota if it was an actual institution, instead of a web portal.

As it is, really, it doesn't seem like a big deal. Basically just a "Hey guys, make sure you don't run afoul of Minnesota laws, and we're not responsible if you do".

It would be expensive to have all their universities shell out thousands of dollars for each and every state that asks for a registration fee. As of now they have 33 universities, multiply with $1200 and with 50 states (because allowing one state opens the precedent for all states to follow suit) and we get close to 2 million dollars.

How exactly does this apply to free courses that do not claim to be part of any kind of formal academic program?

What exactly are they "protecting students" from? "Hey, that free course that I took ripped me off?"

If some other institution chooses to give you credit for one of those courses, or anything else they decide to give you credit for, presumably that's an issue to be addressed with the institution granting credit.

How exactly does this apply to free courses that do not claim to be part of any kind of formal academic program?

What exactly are they "protecting students" from? "Hey, that free course that I took ripped me off?"

If some other institution chooses to give you credit for one of those courses, or anything else they decide to give you credit for, presumably that's an issue to be addressed with the institution granting credit.

The state says that they do not consider that the law applies to free courses, but they will try to get that clearer in the law. In any case, they are not taking any action to regulate free courses.

[snip] What's the point in having one hour lectures when any prof worth their salt will tell you students only pick up the first 20-30 minutes at best.

As a college teacher, let me say that there are two kinds of students: those who can and do remain engaged for an entire 75 minute class, including asking relevant questions right up to the end of the period and beyond, and those who dork around with their laptops or fall asleep. One generally finds the first kind near the front of the room, and the second kind as close to the back as they can get.

Am I "worth my salt?" The Student Government Association -- students, not administrators -- selected me as the outstanding faculty member for 2009.

Kind of like the music industry I guess. We found a better model Training on Demand, that is in many ways superior to the traditional classroom setting as well as the textbook.

Where is there any evidence what so ever that training on demand is a better method then traditional instruction?

There seems to be this obsession with tech in teaching but were are the studies that show they help let alone the cost benefit? I enjoy these classes but they don't touch being in a real classroom where you can ask questions and you have less distractions.

Speaking as a current college student who has experience with online education and classroom based, I'd say that some people just aren't smart enough, tech savvy enough, or lack the common sense to learn from an internet-based course. I go to school alongside a bunch of people who are forced to use technology they are unfamiliar with, and with little guidance on what to do when things go wrong.

For example, I am taking a course on statistics, where we go to class for lectures and tests, but do all of our homework through a Mathlab website, and there is almost no tutorial, advice, or framework for when things aren't working properly.

Another example, is that our campus uses E-college as a front-end for teachers to work with students electronically, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It is supposed to integrate with the campus e-mail, but it's very spotty, and is often down, or silently fails when I try to send a message to my teacher. There's no confirmation of e-mail sent, e-mail received, and trying to use it while not on-campus is essentially an effort in futility.

Final example: A lot of the people who are forced into online learning don't have the technical prowess or computer savvy to really function well in an online learning environment. A lot of the people I took hybrids with failed or did very poorly in the classes not because they weren't capable students, but because they didn't know the subtleties of the system. Those same people who did poorly in hybrids did very well in regular classes, because the environment was not outside their technological comfort zone.

For the record, Pearson has criminally terrible online learning supplements, and e-College systems can suck a fat one, they are absolutely awful at providing a usable service.

You're overlooking those of us that just don't like elearning. I can't justify in my mind paying thousands of dollars to get what is effectively Google + forums + IRC. I'm paying for an instructor's time, the ability to ask clarifying questions immediately (not send a message and maybe get a response a few days later after I've forgotten the context of my issue), and to get hands-on experience. Further, it's far easier to maintain a schedule and pace when you have a fixed course schedule where you physically go to class every day or every week. With elearning, the very at-your-own-pace nature of it makes it FAR too easy to procrastinate for those so inclined (even on subjects you're interested and skilled in.)

I'm by no means a slow individual, nor am I poorly skilled with computers. Elearning just doesn't work for me, and the perception that I'm paying for what I could get for free exacerbates the issue.

Just as some people are better at learning from a book but gain nothing from hands on, or those that can't learn anything from a book but grasp it intuitively when getting their hands on it, elearning works for some and not for others. Further example would be some of the courses I just recently took. Some of them they made me do hybrid courses (one class per week, the rest online), and it was a nightmare getting the online stuff done even though the subject matter was ridiculously easy (I have a 4.0 GPA after the 5 classes I took between January and August). Similarly, the writing course I took was 4 days of class per week, and I largely ignored what was going on in class, and simply worked on the assignments instead; it wasn't so much about the lecture (though there were some interesting discussions, and chances to clarify exactly what the instructor was looking for and wanted to see in our papers), as having that time clearly blocked off as "time for work on this class." it does make a difference. It doesn't indicate a lack of competency, just a difference between how different people learn.

I would support Minnesota if it was an actual institution, instead of a web portal.

As it is, really, it doesn't seem like a big deal. Basically just a "Hey guys, make sure you don't run afoul of Minnesota laws, and we're not responsible if you do".

It would be expensive to have all their universities shell out thousands of dollars for each and every state that asks for a registration fee. As of now they have 33 universities, multiply with $1200 and with 50 states (because allowing one state opens the precedent for all states to follow suit) and we get close to 2 million dollars.

Why do they need to pay 2 million dollars?

It's *up to* $1200. I think the original article states up to "several thousand dollars". It's not clear how they determine the fee for each institution, our even whether they could possibly waive the fee.

Ding-a-ling - Reality to Earth! *EVERY. SINGLE. STATE.* has different regulations pertaining to online education offered residents of the state. The regulations and costs vary dramatically from state to state, with Minnesota being one of the more costly and restrictive, although, probably not the most. In many, although not all, regulations and costs are triggered by in-state activities, such as test proctoring, internships or even instructor residence (e.g. Minnesota). If an institution endeavors to comply with state laws, it's like dealing with 50+ different countries. Actually, it's worse because other countries don't typically have these kinds of regulations.

This has been a more visible issue since the Dept. of Education issued a ruling in 2010 requiring colleges receiving DOE financial aid for students comply with state regulations. Colleges such as Phoenix, which have substantial operations in many states already comply with state regulations, but non-profit, usually state schools, universities and colleges offering online classes and programs have been caught up short. The DOE regulations are on hold, but now that institutions are aware of the restrictions, they have to deal with them or ban students from states where complying with regulations does not make economic sense.

Kind of like the music industry I guess. We found a better model Training on Demand, that is in many ways superior to the traditional classroom setting as well as the textbook.

Where is there any evidence what so ever that training on demand is a better method then traditional instruction?

Have you tried both? What's the point in having one hour lectures when any prof worth their salt will tell you students only pick up the first 20-30 minutes at best.

Yes I have. Bob Brown, Infinity and Spork all hit on some of the points but from my experience which is not data of course I like the online classes for subjects I am interested in on a more superficial or hobby basis but I am in no way getting an education like I did when I was in University. I was one of the front of class kids Bob Brown mentioned and actually interacted in the class room asking questions of my professor, starting up or joining study groups with fellow students, and had a block of time set aside where I know I am in subject matter mode.

With the online class I can breeze though a few or listen to them in the back ground. I get what I want out of them but I am not getting half of what I would have got from the class being in a class room. To date myself a bit I took a correspondence class which took twice as long to complete even though it was easier then any classroom class I had and the reason was simple I could put it off.

Maybe I am the exception (though I doubt it). But as Spork said having the block of learning time alone is a huge factor in learning. When you are on your on pace I would go so far as to say most people will continue to push off the work to later. There will be more cramming of several weeks of classroom in a night or two which does not give most people time to think and process what they are learning.

[snip] What's the point in having one hour lectures when any prof worth their salt will tell you students only pick up the first 20-30 minutes at best.

As a college teacher, let me say that there are two kinds of students: those who can and do remain engaged for an entire 75 minute class, including asking relevant questions right up to the end of the period and beyond, and those who dork around with their laptops or fall asleep. One generally finds the first kind near the front of the room, and the second kind as close to the back as they can get.

Am I "worth my salt?" The Student Government Association -- students, not administrators -- selected me as the outstanding faculty member for 2009.

Great.. what do you teach that so easy? Sorry I went to the biggest research institute in the country. I may have run across two teachers in that entire time that would rather teach, then work on their own research.

And btw.. how can you have half your class get 100% on a test, and the rest get 0%? You do realize most things fall on a normal curve in Academia. Or do you judge performance based on where people are sitting? What is your measure that you've decided there are only two kinds of students?

[snip] What's the point in having one hour lectures when any prof worth their salt will tell you students only pick up the first 20-30 minutes at best.

As a college teacher, let me say that there are two kinds of students: those who can and do remain engaged for an entire 75 minute class, including asking relevant questions right up to the end of the period and beyond, and those who dork around with their laptops or fall asleep. One generally finds the first kind near the front of the room, and the second kind as close to the back as they can get.

Am I "worth my salt?" The Student Government Association -- students, not administrators -- selected me as the outstanding faculty member for 2009.

Great.. what do you teach that so easy? Sorry I went to the biggest research institute in the country. I may have run across two teachers in that entire time that would rather teach, then work on their own research.

And btw.. how can you have half your class get 100% on a test, and the rest get 0%? You do realize most things fall on a normal curve in Academia. Or do you judge performance based on where people are sitting? What is your measure that you've decided there are only two kinds of students?

You won't mind naming that university and the instructors in question, then, to back up your assertions and anecdote.